Quote Originally Posted by Lee Chowaniec View Post
Yes, they don’t need a reason to not reappoint an election inspector, but unless there is cause to deny reappointment they do.

Commissioner Mohr stated there was malfeasance by Kless that resulted in her being denied reappointment and Kless contends she received no notification of the infractions:

Ralph M. Mohr, Republican commissioner for the board, said Kless was not among the election inspectors listed for the November election because she made two serious mistakes.

“In a primary election, she handed out the wrong ballot to members of a political party, so people voted in the wrong primary election,” Mohr said. “She also handed out a second ballot to a person who had already voted. Those are the worst things you can do as an election inspector.”

But Kless questioned why she was not told about the infractions.


I suggested Kless FOIA for records indicating reported infractions and who provided the information to Mohr that accuses Kless of the malfeasance. Transparency is critical here as both parties are making serious charges and others are informing me that there could be cause for Kless not being reappointed.

If there is no documentation attesting to the charge of malfeasance, should this not be considered hearsay and/or suspicion warranted that this action was politically motivated; especially with the shenanigans taking place in the recent primary.
Lee, I gotta say that your first paragraph is one of the most stunningly incomprehensible things I’ve read since an Obama speech.
Let me see, they needn’t have a reason not to reappoint unless they do need it? Is that what you’re saying? Well, do they need one or don’t they? Here’s your answer: No. Her term was up. Period.